공사대금등
1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 1, 2016 to May 12, 2016, and the following.
1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, comprehensively taking into account the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff was awarded from the defendant on December 28, 2015 the contract amount of "DS-1 PTS UT UTRITY pipeline construction" (hereinafter "instant construction") at 19,000 for the construction cost, and the plaintiff issued a tax invoice after completing the aforementioned construction on February 29, 2016, but the defendant did not pay KRW 33,00,000 among the construction cost.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won for the unpaid construction price and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 1, 2016 to May 12, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, from March 1, 2016, on the day following the completion of construction to issue
2. The defendant's defense asserts that since the plaintiff did not pay wages to workers while conducting the construction in this case, the defendant's obligation to pay wages has occurred after receiving a notice of payment and suspension of wage claims from the wage creditors, the unpaid construction cost cannot be paid.
However, the Defendant cannot refuse the payment of the unpaid construction cost solely on the ground that the Defendant received a notice from the wage creditors regarding the payment and suspension of wage claims in relation to the instant construction work.
(A) The defendant's defense is not accepted. (A) The defendant's wages are not already paid to the wage creditors, and there is no court's decision regarding the suspension of payment.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.